United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: TEN MYTHS ABOUT THE BUSH TAX CUTS—AND THE FACTS
Source:
Heritage.org
URL Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/upload/bg_2001.pdf
Published: Jan 20, 2010
Author: Heritage.org
Post Date: 2010-01-20 15:59:41 by dont eat that
Keywords: None
Views: 1271
Comments: 60
Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low. Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts. Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit. Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline. Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves. Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues. Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut. Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits. Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases. Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue. Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates. Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues. Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most. Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by “putting money in people’s pockets.” Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior. Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy. Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts. Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich. Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: dont eat that (#0)
This was published in 2007 and revenue growth lagged the average...
No Stems No Seeds That You Don't Need...
AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE...
No Stems No Seeds That You Don't Need...
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts. Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical averages. 1 The inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest two-year revenue surge since 1965–1967.2 Claims that Americans are undertaxed by historical standards are patently false. Some critics of President George W. Bush’s tax policies concede that tax revenues exceed the historical average yet assert that revenues are historically low for economies in the fourth year of an expansion. Setting aside that some of these tax policies are partly responsible for that economic expansion, the numbers simply do not support this claim. Comparing tax revenues in the fourth fiscal year after the end of each of the past three recessions shows nearly equal tax revenues of: • 18.4 percent of GDP in 1987, • 18.5 percent of GDP in 1995, and • 18.4 percent of GDP in 2006.3 While revenues as a percentage of GDP have not fully returned to pre-recession levels (20.9 percent in 2000), it is now clear that the pre-recession level was a major historical anomaly caused by a temporary stock market bubble.
Revenues v GDP is a shell game...
No Stems No Seeds That You Don't Need...
What a stupid, stupid, stupid comment...even from you. Correlation .... do yourself a favor ...... look up the definition and apply it.
Death to everybody who does not get outta my way.
GDP decreases...revenues remain the same...where are revenues versus GDP up or down? It's a shell game... Back during the Clinton days you folks used to bitch about revenues v GDP first being too low and then when revenues started rolling in them being too high... It's a shell game... We don't pay taxes based upon our output. We pay it against various types of income and that income doesn't even have to produce anything. It's a shell game.
No Stems No Seeds That You Don't Need...
Except that GDP didn't decrease in 2004, 2005 and 2006
Chuckles...yea so?
No Stems No Seeds That You Don't Need...
Your entire argument is bullshit and just BDS political crap. Even if GDP decreases, that means revenue would be expected to relatively decrease. The two aren't mutually removable. 99% of economists recognize the health of budgetary policy must be made relative to GDP. What fucking sewer do the 1% of you other dumbasses live in?
BULLSHIT. GDP = output. Income can be made from sales of PRIOR output e.g. inventories...from sales of stock, i.e., capital gains. You are out of your FUCKING mind padlock. You believe that you can throw this crap up here - opinion in the guise of fact - and have it accepted like fucking Moses coming down the fucking mountain with stone tablets. None of this crap stands up to even minimal scrutiny. None of it.
No Stems No Seeds That You Don't Need...
Uhh, this is a discussion of government revenues. Not a discussion of business profit statements.
Chuckles....from where do those revenues derive their source, puddin' head?
No Stems No Seeds That You Don't Need...
99% of economists recognize the health of budgetary policy must be made relative to No Stems No Seeds That You Don't Need...
Largely from personal income taxes and pay roll taxes, and it has been shown that after the Bush tax cuts, revenue was incoming at or larger than historical rates despite the personal income tax cuts and the economy was growing at a faster than historical rate. The tax cuts worked. Let's hope the nigger doesn't let them expire.
Game over... Thanks for playing...
No Stems No Seeds That You Don't Need...
Can't we all just get along?
No Stems No Seeds That You Don't Need...
What happens when you remove the home buying that you so decry from the GDP picture, puddin'?
No Stems No Seeds That You Don't Need...
All I know is I made good money under the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. Under this idiots administration (Obama) I'm not. Nobody else seem to be either, unless your a federal employee.
You think it has explicitly to do with his skin color and not that he is a jive ass, lying, ghetto con man. he needs to resign from the Presidency and pursue a career to which he would be more suited -- namely a crack dealer or pimp. He could start by snake oiling Michelle, although I doubt anyone would offer more than 10 dollars for that stink hole.
No...I believe that it has to do with you not understanding the world and your place in it.
No Stems No Seeds That You Don't Need...
I've talked with some lumber manufacturers and boat builders (to name a couple of industries) and they have all said that last year was the worst year they ever had. So much for the HNIC's stimulus.
Corporate profits grew last year after falling in 2008.
No Stems No Seeds That You Don't Need...
It was all a sham, only kool aid drinkers think otherwise.
FWIW we took our biggest hit in 4Q07, 1Q/2Q08 were flat, and things have steadily improved since then. We were able to restore most of our salary/budget cuts made in 12/08, and we do all our business in the commercial sector.
Glad to hear it GO65. Your the only one I know of...course I don't know what it is you 'do' so I can't gauge the impact implied.
And goldi wonders why her forum is compared to Stormfront.
IT related. It's not just us, look at earnings announcements from Google, Cisco, Apple, etc. Most sectors have seen some improvement in the last 6 months.
LoL!
This company made Dell very happy last Fall...
No Stems No Seeds That You Don't Need...
FYI: Source: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
Bloomberg today:
Yep, but thats in comparision to a horrific previous year.
Its the result of laying off from what I can tell.
She doesn't wonder at all. She knows exactly why.
I sold 100% of my crops last summer. I had orders for twice that amount that I couldn't fill. I was getting as much as $10.00 a pound for some at farmer's markets. A processor who buys some of my produce said she was getting some of her payments 30 days late from her customers mostly wineries and boutique shops, but she said they are now all paid up.
i see revenue rising every year after the 2003 tax cuts. What's the problem?
Revenues, and spending and deficits for that matter, mean nothing in and of themselves. They are always relevant only when compared to the size of the overall economy.
WRONG
No Stems No Seeds That You Don't Need...
RIGHT
Say good night puddin'...averages were invented so that statisticians would have something to do...
No Stems No Seeds That You Don't Need...
Comments (41 - 60) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestPublished: Jan 20, 2010
#2. To: dont eat that (#0)
(Edited)
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
#3. To: war (#1)
revenue growth lagged the average...
#4. To: dont eat that (#3)
#5. To: war (#4)
Revenues v GDP is a shell game...
#6. To: e_type_jag (#5)
(Edited)
#7. To: war (#6)
GDP decreases.
#8. To: dont eat that (#7)
#9. To: war (#8)
#10. To: padlock (#9)
The two aren't mutually removable.
#11. To: war (#10)
GDP = output. Income can be made from sales of PRIOR output e.g. inventories...from sales of stock, i.e., capital gains.
#12. To: padlock (#11)
Uhh, this is a discussion of government revenues.
#13. To: dont eat that (#9)
(Edited)
99% of economists recognize the health of budgetary policy must be made relative to GDP
GDP revenues...
#14. To: war (#12)
from where do those revenues derive their source
#15. To: dont eat that (#14)
Largely from personal income taxes and pay roll taxes
#16. To: padlock, e_type_jag (#14)
Let's hope the nigger doesn't let them expire.
#17. To: padlock (#14)
and the economy was growing at a faster than historical rate.
#18. To: dont eat that (#0)
#19. To: war (#16)
#20. To: padlock (#19)
You think it has explicitly to do with his skin color
#21. To: Badeye (#18)
#22. To: padlock (#21)
I've talked with some lumber manufacturers and boat builders (to name a couple of industries) and they have all said that last year was the worst year they ever had.
#23. To: dont eat that (#21)
#24. To: Badeye (#18)
All I know is I made good money under the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. Under this idiots administration (Obama) I'm not. Nobody else seem to be either, unless your a federal employee.
#25. To: go65 (#24)
#26. To: dont eat that (#14)
#27. To: Badeye (#25)
Glad to hear it GO65. Your the only one I know of...course I don't know what it is you 'do' so I can't gauge the impact implied.
#28. To: Bartcoprules (#26)
And goldi wonders why her forum is compared to Stormfront.
#29. To: go65 (#27)
#30. To: dont eat that (#0)
From the Congressional Budget Office’s 2007 Budget Outlook: “The expiration of tax provisions as scheduled has a substantial impact on CBO’s projections, especially beyond 2010 when a number of revenue-reducing tax provisions enacted in the past several years are slated to expire,” the report says. “Almost all of the expiring provisions reduce revenues.”
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the 2001 tax legislation (the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act) would cause government revenues to be 107.7 billion less than they would have been in the absence of the legislation in 2004, 107.4 billion less in 2005 and 135.2 billion less in 2006. The committee's estimates for the effect of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 were that it would reduce otherwise projected revenues by 148.7 billion in 2004, 82.2 billion in 2005 and 20.7 billion in 2006. The JCT makes its comparisons against the Congressional Budget Office's receipts baselines.
The projections were not off the mark. A look at the committee's estimates of total federal revenue including the effects of the 2003 tax legislation versus the actual federal receipts shows that the JCT's projections were higher than actual revenues in 2003 and 2004 and slightly lower than actual receipts in 2005.
Also, Rob Portman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Ed Lazear, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, told journalists at the Washington Times last October that the tax cuts prompted economic and stock market growth. But, the paper reported, “they conceded that the tax cuts…cut deeply into government revenue.”
.jpg)
#31. To: war, badeye (#29)
More than 60 companies in the S&P 500 are reporting fourth- quarter results this week and analysts surveyed by Bloomberg forecast total earnings grew 67 percent, with estimates for a 30 percent increase in the first quarter of 2010. The benchmark index’s valuation climbed last week to 25 times its companies’ reported operating profits, the highest level since 2002, following a 70 percent jump since March.
#32. To: go65 (#27)
#33. To: go65 (#31)
#34. To: Bartcoprules (#26)
#35. To: go65 (#24)
(Edited)
FWIW we took our biggest hit in 4Q07, 1Q/2Q08 were flat, and things have steadily improved since then. We were able to restore most of our salary/budget cuts made in 12/08, and we do all our business in the commercial sector.
#36. To: go65 (#30)
#37. To: war (#13)
#38. To: dont eat that (#37)
#39. To: war (#38)
#40. To: padlock (#39)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]